G.R. No. 260704 - People vs. Conti y Paraggua

Case Summary (G.R. No. 260704)

Petitioner / Respondent

Petitioner: People of the Philippines (plaintiff‑appellee before the appellate courts); Respondent/Appellant: Marlon (defendant‑appellant before the appellate courts).

Key Dates (factual incident and examination)

Alleged criminal acts: on or about November 13, 2013; medico‑legal examination: November 15, 2013; victim’s age on the date of incident: under 12 years (born earlier, specific date redacted in the record).

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Relevant penal provisions: Article 266‑A(1)(d) and Article 266‑A(2) of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 8353, the Anti‑Rape Law of 1997); R.A. No. 9262 (Anti‑Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004); R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). Procedural rules: Section 13, Rule 110 and Section 3, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Constitutional framework: decisions were rendered under the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Charges

Two informations charged Marlon in separate criminal cases: (1) Violation of Section 5(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of R.A. No. 9262 (physical violence and threats upon BBB); and (2) Statutory Rape—Article 266‑A(1)(d) (carnal knowledge of AAA, a minor). The second information also alleged penetration by digital means preceding penile insertion.

Summary of Facts

AAA (age seven) and her mother BBB resided with Marlon in the house of Marlon’s mother; they reportedly slept in the same room. On November 13, 2013, BBB returned from the bathroom to witness Marlon pull down AAA’s shorts and insert his finger into AAA’s vagina; BBB testified this was the third time she had observed such digital penetration. BBB further testified that Marlon subsequently inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina. BBB intervened, was struck by Marlon, lost consciousness, and later reported the incident to relatives and authorities. Dr. Simangan’s medicolegal report documented hymenal lacerations at the 5 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions on AAA.

Defense Case and Alibi

Marlon denied the charges and asserted an alibi: he claimed he spent the night of November 13, 2013, at a warehouse in Buntun, Tuguegarao City, where he worked. Defense witness Faustino corroborated that both he and Marlon worked at and spent that night in the warehouse, but testified they slept in different rooms about fifteen meters apart and that he could not see into Marlon’s room.

RTC Findings and Disposition

The Regional Trial Court found Marlon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both the RA 9262 offense (criminal case for violence against BBB) and Statutory Rape (criminal case for AAA). The RTC credited the direct, positive, and detailed testimonies of AAA and BBB, corroborated by the medico‑legal findings, and rejected the defenses of denial and alibi. For statutory rape, the RTC imposed reclusion perpetua and awarded PHP 75,000 each as civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages; for the RA 9262 conviction the RTC imposed arresto mayor (with recognition of time served) and ordered a PHP100,000 fine.

CA Ruling on Appeal

The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the RTC’s conviction for Statutory Rape (Criminal Case No. 16452). The CA held that the elements of statutory rape under Article 266‑A(1)(d) were established: AAA’s age (under 12) and carnal knowledge. The CA relied on AAA’s categorical testimony, BBB’s eyewitness account, and Dr. Simangan’s medical findings. The CA added legal interest of 6% per annum on the monetary awards, and limited its review to the statutory rape conviction because the Notice of Appeal filed by Marlon initially only pertained to Criminal Case No. 16452.

Issue on Further Appeal

The central appellate issue considered by the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming Marlon’s conviction for statutory rape under Article 266‑A(1)(d).

Supreme Court Ruling — Scope and Standard of Review

The Supreme Court found the appeal devoid of merit and declined to overturn the factual findings of the RTC and CA. It reiterated the settled principle that a trial court’s credibility determinations are entitled to great weight when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court observed that denial and uncorroborated alibi cannot prevail over positive, consistent, and detailed testimony corroborated by medical evidence.

Statutory Rape Analysis (Article 266‑A(1)(d))

The Court recited the elements of statutory rape under Article 266‑A(1)(d): (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of consent or whether force was employed. The Court concluded these elements were satisfied: AAA’s age was uncontroverted and the occurrence of sexual intercourse was established by AAA’s testimony, BBB’s eyewitness account, and the medico‑legal report showing hymenal lacerations.

Sexual Assault Analysis (Article 266‑A(2) in relation to R.A. No. 7610)

The Supreme Court additionally held that the prosecution proved an antecedent act of digital penetration separate from the penile penetration. Where an information sufficiently notifies the accused of both acts, an offender may be convicted for more than one sexual offense arising from the same incident if the accused fails to object to a multi‑offense information before trial (Rules 110 and 120). Applying controlling precedents (including People v. Agoncillo, People v. Chingh, and People v. Tulagan), the Court treated the digital insertion as Sexual Assault under Article 266‑A(2), in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 (child victim under 12), rather than under the older Article 336 rubric. The Court therefore convicted Marlon of both Statutory Rape (Article 266‑A(1)(d)) and Sexual Assault (Article 266‑A(2) as related to R.A. 7610) because both offenses were alleged in the information and proven at trial, and Marlon did not move to quash the information.

Penalties Imposed

For Statutory Rape (Article 266‑A(1)(d)) the sentence is reclusion perpetua. For Sexual Assault (Article 266‑A(2) relating to R.A. 7610) the Court applied reclusion temporal in its medium period; using the Indeterminate Sentence Law and releva

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 260704)

Case Caption, Court and Decision Dates

Third Division of the Supreme Court; G.R. No. 260704; Decision penned by Justice Singh and promulgated February 27, 2023.
Appeal from the August 13, 2021 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13749, which itself affirmed with modification the September 18, 2019 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, in Criminal Case Nos. 16451 and 16452.
RTC Judgment penned by Judge Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino (rollo, pp. 24–37). CA Decision authored by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurred in by Associate Justices Louis P. Acosta and Bonifacio S. Pascua (rollo, pp. 8–21).

Parties and Roles

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
Defendant-Appellant: Marlon Conti y Paraggua (hereafter “Marlon”).
Private complainants/victims: AAA (minor, seven years old at time of incident) and BBB (AAA’s mother and Marlon’s common-law partner). Names redacted pursuant to Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 and RA No. 8505.
Defense witness: Faustino Rodriguez (co-worker).
Medical witness: Dr. Mila-Simangan, Municipal Health Officer who examined BBB and AAA on November 15, 2013.

Crimes Charged (Informations)

Criminal Case No. 16451: Violation of Section 5(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004). Accusation alleges physical violence upon BBB by boxing and mauling, inflicting physical injuries requiring medical treatment, threats with a gun, and causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, physical/psychological distress and humiliation, thereby degrading her dignity (rollo, pp. 24–25).
Criminal Case No. 16452: Statutory Rape. Accusation alleges that on or about November 13, 2013, Marlon, with lewd design, sexually abused AAA (minor, 7 years old) by inserting his finger into her vagina, thereafter having sexual intercourse with the complainant against her will (rollo, p. 25).

Procedural Posture and Pleas

At arraignment, Marlon pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The parties moved for a joint trial; the cases were jointly tried (rollo, p. 25).
Marlon filed a Notice of Appeal in Criminal Case No. 16452 (records, p. 138). The CA initially limited its ruling to Criminal Case No. 16452 because the Notice of Appeal pertained only to that case (CA rollo, p. 12; rollo, p. 13).
CA’s August 13, 2021 decision denied Marlon’s appeal in Criminal Case No. 16452 and affirmed with modification the RTC judgment, imposing 6% per annum interest on the monetary award (rollo, pp. 20–21).
CA Resolution of December 16, 2021 gave due course to Marlon’s Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court (rollo, pp. 3–6). Supreme Court, in a July 25, 2022 Resolution, directed supplemental briefs; parties later waived filing and adopted briefs filed before the CA (rollo, pp. 40–42 & 49–51).

Facts as Found by the Prosecution and RTC

Domestic arrangement: Marlon (common-law partner), BBB (his partner), and AAA (BBB’s seven-year-old daughter) lived together in Marlon’s mother’s house in Cagayan, sleeping in the same room (TSN Aug. 31, 2016; TSN Nov. 27, 2017).
Incident date: On or about November 13, 2013, while AAA was lying in their room, Marlon allegedly pulled down and removed her shorts and inserted his finger into AAA’s vagina; BBB testified she witnessed this and that it was the third time she had seen Marlon insert his finger into AAA’s vagina (TSN excerpts; rollo, pp. 26 & 28).
Subsequent act: Marlon then allegedly inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina; BBB struck Marlon’s back in alarm; Marlon allegedly fought back, punched BBB in the abdomen causing her to lose consciousness; upon regaining consciousness Marlon was gone from the house (TSN excerpts; rollo, pp. 26 & 28).
Reporting: BBB reported the incident to Marlon’s uncle; next morning BBB and AAA, accompanied by BBB’s grandfather (CCC), went to the Barangay Hall and police station to file a complaint (records, p. 6).
Medical findings: Dr. Mila-Simangan’s medicolegal report (examining AAA and BBB on November 15, 2013) stated that AAA had hymenal lacerations at the 5 and 9 o’clock positions (records, p. 8).

Defense Version and Evidence for the Defense

Marlon denied charges and asserted alibi: he testified he was not at home on November 13, 2013, having spent the night at a warehouse in Buntun, Tuguegarao City, where he was employed (TSN Dec. 12, 2018).
Faustino’s testimony: testified that he worked in the same warehouse and that both he and Marlon spent the night in the warehouse on November 13, 2013, but stated they slept in different rooms about 15 meters apart and on cross-examination acknowledged he could not see from his room what occurred in Marlon’s room (TSN Feb. 21, 2019).

RTC Findings and Rulings (September 18, 2019)

RTC convicted Marlon beyond reasonable doubt of:
- Criminal Case No. 16451: Violation of RA 9262 Section 5(a) in relation to Section 6(a). Penalty: arresto mayor (one month and one day to six months). RTC noted Marlon had been in custody since November 19, 2014 and had already served more than the imposable penalty; considered served. Ordered to pay a fine of PHP 100,000 pursuant to Section 6, last paragraph of RA 9262 and to report compliance within 15 days (rollo, pp. 36–37).
- Criminal Case No. 16452: Statutory Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353. Penalty: reclusion perpetua. Ordered to pay AAA PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages, and PHP 75,000 as exemplary damages. Preventive imprisonment credited in full if disciplinary rules observed (rollo, pp. 36–37).
RTC rejected defenses of denial and alibi, found the testimonies of BBB and AAA and Dr. Simangan’s findings sufficient to sustain conviction (rollo, pp. 36–37).

Arguments on Appeal (as raised by Marlon)

Marlon contended BBB’s and AAA’s testimonies contained irreconcilable inconsistencies and were therefore not credible (CA rollo, pp. 24–28).
He argued BBB’s continued cohabitation despite alleged prior insertions and BBB’s delay in intervening until penetration were contrary to human experience and thus rendered BBB’s testimony incredible (CA rollo, pp. 24–28).
Marlon asserted he was elsewhere on the date in question (alibi) and urged that Faustino’s testimony corroborated his alibi.

CA Ruling (August 13, 2021)

CA limited its review to Criminal Case No. 16452 (Statutory Rape) because the Notice of Appeal pertained only to that case (CA rollo, p. 12; rollo, p. 13).
CA found prosecution established elements of Statutory Rape:
- AAA’s age (under 12) was uncontroverted.
- Sexual intercou